The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

there's a reason they call it "stupid watergate" and not "watergate bis"

some more fun with a video.

Trump's homeland security advisor duped :

Horseshoe theory, because the left want to kill Trump. The left portray Trump's severed head, and the right portray a hanging Obama. The left vandalize Trump convention supporter parking lots, and the right... I don't recall them doing that. The left throws a shoe at George bush, and the right... Well, you're going to have to find examples, I'm all out tbh.

Also, Trump acting poorly toward media, is not evidence of collusion. It's evidence of his poor social behaviors which we knew he had from get-go. Easy to make fun of. Sort of like that kid in school that gets mad when you make up a mocking name for him and always harass him by calling him gay, and then he gets mad and takes a gun to school. Except the kid's just dangerous for being a white hetero male, the bullies are wrong for provoking his poor social habits constantly, and it's perfectly fine to mock Trump based on skin color or old family name or such tripe.

It irked me in the beginning really, that conservatives listed liberal issues in the form of budget (hypocritically), scandals, and failures in current administration, and liberals listed conservative issues in the form of "they're racist", "cheeto", and "drumpft". I'd have appreciated an intelligent approach, and it might have helped since we know how most conservatives handle name-calling with uniting.

...so are they or are they not the same??

that fell apart pretty quickly..

Ah right, "the left".

Sure.

Okay.

I have a decent idea of what you consider "the left" now. Is it, perhaps, anyone remotely more left-leaning than your good self?

When I quote a direction, it's usually the worst examples, of EITHER side, because they're slowly devolving into the most supported sides despite their toxic atmosphere.


Like any argument, they're such polar opposites, they lynch people. It's the lynching people that's bad. Generally, both sides could live together without violating each other's liberties, if they both didn't insist the other had to die.

I'm not worried about either argument or supporters, I'm worried about the rabid supporters and the arguments turned violent in the name of islam... er, I mean, whatever the left shoots up a baseball field over.


Some of the left-supporters, act like rabid anti-bronies do toward Trump if he were a brony.

yes... any modelisation that makes something complex immediately look super simple is incredibly attractive.

problem is sometimes in life things really are complex. and them seeming complex isn't a matter of perception. and there being no dumbed-down entry-level explanation for the stupids is a major source of issues.

but yeah this :

Is simply wishful thinking and absolute garbage.

I love how they CANNOT abstain from throwing in a Brazen bull with what's likely religious undertones/implied evil.

like fuckk... you do know about passive idea conveyance do you not? no? oh well then... stay ignored.


I personally don't have to have a "Go REDS!" or "Go BLUES!" tagged at the end of every last goddamn message I agree with like a potato on the end of a 9gag post but I guess that's just me being weird and cooky....


I find it weird how if people aren't under a banner and in clear boxes you (thetrophysystem) can't make sense of them.

For the last time people can't be put into boxes. it's not that simple.

and no appellation for a group of people no matter how universally agreed upon it's definition is will have a set of ideals that fit 100% any single one of it's member's own ideals.

and just because I'm a party pooper, no unfortunately, there is no group of people whose definition is universally agreed upon.

It's the illusion that it's the case that makes us feel like we belong.

this applies to all the groups. yes the left included.

I know (perhaps in the way a religious man "knows" there is a god) that my beliefs are far better represented with a hazy general ensemble of left "lefts" than with what resounds from a hazy general ensemble of right "rights".

but that doesn't define me.
nor do any of the definitions of "left" fit my ideals to even 60%.
but it sure beats how any "right" definition can't break 25% for me.

we by now in this thread should be wiser about all this.

we've had massive numbers of examples of dissonance between ourselves on our understandings of how "right" and "left" are defined.

Your right-left horseshoe is based on your (very very isolated I think it's high time you realized that) definitions of the left in particular but I'm not gonna cut you slack on the fact that your definition of the right is probably not unilateral either nor is it the majority's.

and once again you're looking for the wrong things to bring together in a "rapprochement" because you have a narrative to drive. I gave you ample material with which to course-correct :

people whether "right" or "left" remain people. it's no surprise they debate the same way/ use the same words/methods (in the case of the same specific intelligence level. right idiots sound like left idiots, right geniuses (few and far between but still) sound like left geniuses).

some vids anyways because shiet be ridiculous.

remember when team republican self-appointed Trump interprets where saying that the "mexico will pay for [the wall]" thing was figurative in Trump's mind? Remember that? those were better days....




and this is a montage with no commentary whatsoever that sums up the thematically named weeks of the Trump presidency:

@thetrophysystem

I like how you phrase it like the people in the middle are perfectly rational and not prone to individual extremist views on any one particular topic.

And no, again, the two extremes do not propagate violence in the same way. All violence is not all violence. It differs. There is nuance in these tired, incredibly boring stereotypes you trot out. But it's lost on you, I think.

War is Peace;
Freedom is Slavery;
Ignorance is Strength

- 1984, Orwell

You literally lost me at "all violence is not all violence".

A kid kicks the back of your chair on an airplane. It's wronging you, so break it's leg. Justice.

Some muslim kill a hundred people in an attack. They're wronging us, so break it's leg. Justice.

It's not like the violence that the terrorists are responsible for, because not all violence is all violence, so violence is okay if we want it.

Yeah, no. All violence, is literally, all violence. Letter for letter. If you have a good reason for it, then you should have an overwhelming majority to win at violence with. Yet you complain your enemy is being violent, while you're being violent. "Why are you defending yourselves?" What you really mean to say, is "Shh, just let it happen".

All violence, has a target. Did your target really deserve it just for having an unpopular opinion? Fine, be violent. I see you're just as lost a cause then.

@thetrophysystem this is a semantics argument

or at least you are desperately taking it there.

I agree that all violence is violence so it was a poorly chosen phrase but don't you think the point he was trying to make was something other than specifically literally "not all violence is violence"? can you really deny that that wasn't the point to yourself?

Is the subject of you trotting out boring overplayed and incredibly wrong stereotypes something of a taboo to you so that you so desperately need to switch topics?

It's pretty undeniable by now I think that the rapprochement you're trying to make between right and left is the wrong one and that your views of either are quite isolated in this world in the grand picture.

also CAN WE PLEASE ADDRESS HOW TRUMP TOOK "mexico will pay for the wall" LITERALLY AND NOT FIGURATIVELY LIKE YOU SAID???

My goodness, I've hit libertarian bingo. An Orwell quote with zero thought for logic, application, or even the slightly attempt to understand Orwell's actual words, and the taking of a post that explicitly calls for nuance, absolutely literally.

"all violence" is not all violence. I have now satisfied the air quotes quota so that people can't play semantics with my post in a disappointingly immature way to avoid engaging with the actual points raised.

Have fun!

This threads become about as cute as beagle butt-throwup. If I wanted elitist opinions enforced as absolute truth, I'd move into a homeowner's association. Apparently, this forum IS a homeowner's association, complete with narcissist neighbors.

I didn't support the Mexico wall. I also didn't support a Syria no-fly zone lacking collaboration with nations that demand it. So which candidate do I choose, the one that can very realistically jump into a war over a no-fly zone, or the one that very realistically can waste much less time and money on a pathetic excuse of a border wall?

No, really. You tell me. Which one do you prefer? If it were your country, do you choose "commit troops and installations to new global standoffs", or "mean sentiments toward immigrants"? AFAIK, you don't have this problem, because your country is sane enough to keep "war hawks" in one party or the other, not both. Both party = War Hawks + Authoritarian/Anti-liberty. THAT's the shoddy situation in the US.

Really, I'm glad Trump's travel bans are reaching mostly pitfalls, nobody's letting it be enforced, which is precisely what I said would happen with Trump. A stalemate, compared to Hillary simply not asking to take actions.

And really, I was right, and you were wrong.

Trump hasn't started a world war, economic crisis, large-scale civil rights infringement, nor has the "Republican majority in all 3 branches" lead to a total collapse of society. They aren't even succeeding at passing laws with that majority, nor are they succeeding at passing constitutional interpretation in the SCOTUS.

Really, I think we can agree, you were wrong about as often as you've posted an Oliver video. *shrugs* Sorry not sorry.

Really, you could cut the irony in here with a knife

A note on "elitist opinions enforced as an absolute truth", to the poster talking about what Hillary would've done like he knows for a fact.

You don't.

Maybe stop presenting your suppositions as absolute facts, then?

You know, some famous sources predicted every result from every presidential election since before Nixon? They predicted Trump would win. What do they know?

Besides the fact that Trump won.

AFAIK the topic at hand was "things liberal-supporters have apparently failed to predict", don't get off topic. Or does that not work for me, like it does when you do it?

Either way, ironic indeed, how "bad at prediction recognizes bad at prediction".

Is your prediction, that I'm bad at prediction, also a bad prediction?

________________________________________

While we're so blatantly getting off topic all the time, Trump did this, don't speculate that...

As a moderator of another forum, I was approached by a German user, because fascistic symbols are against the law in Germany, and one was posted by a user.

The user is literally a friend of mine, and a LPF (Libertarian Party of Florida) registered member and the fundraising director for local politician Joe Wendt.

The image was a Swastika, as a client-mod texture in an old C&C game. It obviously wasn't an endorsement in any way or form.

Does anyone care to guess what I did?

Who cares about those predictions.

We were talking about your predictions about a candidate that didn't win the election, about how terrible she would've been because you know this for a fact. Which we don't know, and will never know, because she didn't win the election.

While complaining that other posters were confusing opinion with fact.

Would you like to move the goalposts further?

Yeah, because I'm moving the goalposts.

If Trump would have lost, people would have only assumed their fears were "right", because they were "so well founded", "the world probably avoided collapse". They'd be just as much opinion-facts by the left had it happened.

You'll spin it around to say "but he didn't lose so we don't know what liberals would do". Yeah, and we don't know what they've done in the past after every other election. Never as bad as this when they've lost, but never any good with the gloating from either side or the pissing and moaning from the other.

They're basically historical facts. You like those, don't you? The one where "we know what Mein Kampf does, so we ban it"? Well, toxic party divides, we knew what those did, IN 1776! So why didn't any of these yoohoos respect George Washington, one of the guys who actually put his *** into forming the country when it didn't pay in worth of doing so, when Washington said to avoid forming political divisions?

I'm pretty sure most Americans don't align with their parties. They pick 1 thing they agree on with the party, have handfuls of disagreement on stances, and just "accept what the party makes them accept". This is why we have stupid republican policies, to saber-rattle and lay siege to democrats and their policies, and democrats have stupid anti-liberty policies, to saber-rattle and lay siege to republican policies. It's about "not only will I win, and not only will I not compromise any agreeable terms, but I'll also destroy everything they ever hoped for or want. If they kill themselves, that's a plus".

IF THEY KILL THEMSELVES, THAT'S A PLUS. Factual stance of divisive party opinions of one another. If Trump supporters kill themselves, that's a plus. If Hillary supporters kill themselves, that's a plus. Honestly, some moderates, probably think both simultaneously would be nice. Nobody's above hostility, but we have way too damn much hostility in both parties. Way too much. Argue that the hostile stance of one side is justified though. We all know, "not all violence is all violence", apparently.

A cinderblock can really improve the entire country, if enough of them decide the election in leau of "an actual election". I mean, what does an election know anyway? Are all the people voting "professionals"? Is there some sort of voter test? Maybe they should just trust the professionals, who know how to manipulate the election process, in order to give them policies they don't realize they really need, because they're too ignorant and unprofessional to be involved in the real decisionmaking. /sarcasm

You keep inventing these wonderful fantasy scenarios to support your original statement of not wanting to listen to elitist opinions enforced as an absolute truth?

Seriously. Irony.

yeah this is pretty fukin surreal.

I also fail to see how I was answered.

"you said we misinterpreted. it was figurative : he was going to use clever taxing to pay back"

-"but Hillary!"

"what?"

-"what?"